荒唐遊戲 政府債券或主權債券

荒唐遊戲 政府債券或主權債券

政府債務或主權債務

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt#:~:text=

一個國家的政府總債務（也稱為公共債務或主權債務[1]）是政府部門的金融負債。[2]: 81 政府債務隨時間的變化主要反映了由於過去政府赤字而產生的借款。[3] 當政府的支出超過收入時，就會出現赤字。[4][2]: 79–82 政府債務可能欠國內居民，也可能欠外國居民。 如果欠外國居民，則該金額包含在該國的外債中。[5]

2020 年，全球政府債務價值為 87.4 萬億美元，占國內生產總值 (GDP) 的 99%。[6] 政府債務占所有債務（包括企業和家庭債務）的近 40%，為 1960 年代以來的最高比例。[6]自 2007 年以來，政府債務的增加主要歸因於大衰退期間的刺激措施和 COVID-19 衰退。[6]

政府發行債務的能力一直是國家形成和國家建設的核心。[7][8] 公共債務與民主的興起、私人金融市場和現代經濟增長息息相關。[7][8]

衡量政府債務

政府債務通常以一般政府部門的總債務來衡量，這種債務以債務工具的形式存在。[2]: 207 債務工具是一種金融債權，要求債務人在未來向債權人支付利息和/或本金。例子包括債務證券（如債券和票據）、貸款和政府雇員養老金債務。[2]: 207

國際比較通常側重於廣義政府債務，因為各國負責計劃（例如醫療保健）的政府級別不同，廣義政府包括中央、州、省、地區、地方政府和社會保障基金。[2]: 18, s2.58, s2.59 根據國際貨幣基金組織的《2014 年政府財政統計手冊》（GFSM），公共公司（如以市場為基礎提供商品或服務的郵局）的債務不包括在廣義政府債務中，該手冊描述了編製債務統計數據以確保國際可比性的推薦方法。[2]: 33, s2.127

廣義政府部門的總債務是作為債務工具的總負債。另一種債務衡量標準是淨債務，即總債務減去債務工具形式的金融資產。[2]: 208, s7.243 淨債務估值並不總是可用的，因為一些政府資產可能難以估值，例如以優惠利率發放的貸款。[2]: 208–209, s7.246

債務可以按市場價值或名義價值衡量。作為一般規則，GFSM 表示債務應按市場價值進行估值，即資產可以兌換成現金的價值。[2]: 55, s3.107 但是，名義價值對於發行債務的政府很有用，因為它是債務人欠債權人的金額。[2]: 191, ft28 如果沒有市場價值和名義價值，則使用麵值（到期時要償還的未折現本金金額）[2]: 56 。[2]: 208, s7.238

一個國家的一般政府債務與 GDP 之比是其債務負擔的指標，因為 GDP 衡量的是經濟體在一段時間內（通常是一年）生產的商品和服務的價值。此外，以 GDP 百分比衡量的債務有助於在不同規模的國家之間進行比較。經合組織將一般政府債務與 GDP 之比視為政府財政可持續性的關鍵指標。[3]

政府債務積累的原因
政府借款的一個重要原因是充當經濟“減震器”。例如，赤字融資可用於在經濟衰退期間維持政府服務，因為經濟衰退期間稅收收入下降，失業救濟金等支出上升。[9] 為支付重大衝擊事件的成本而產生的政府債務可能特別有益。這些事件包括

像第二次世界大戰這樣的大戰爭；

像 COVID-19 衰退這樣的公共衛生緊急事件；或
像大衰退這樣的嚴重經濟衰退。[10]
在沒有債務融資的情況下，當經濟低迷期間收入下降時，政府將需要提高稅收或削減支出，這將加劇負麵事件。

雖然政府借款有時可能是可取的，但當社會各群體對政府支出存在分歧時，可能會出現“赤字偏見”。[11][12] 為了應對赤字偏見，許多國家都采用了平衡預算規則或對政府債務進行限製。例子包括瑞典的“債務錨”[9]；德國和瑞士的“債務刹車”；以及歐盟《穩定與增長公約》協議，將政府總債務維持在不超過 GDP 的 60% 的水平。[13][14]

曆史基準

政府發行債務的能力

一直是國家形成和國家建設的核心。[7][8] 公共債務與民主的興起、私人金融市場和現代經濟增長息息相關。[7][8] 例如，在 17 和 18 世紀，英國建立了一個議會，其中包括債權人，作為更大聯盟的一部分，國家必須獲得債權人的授權才能借款或加稅。這一製度提高了英國的借貸能力，因為貸款人更願意持有一個擁有支持債務償還的民主製度的國家的債務，而不是一個君主無法被迫償還債務的國家的債務。[7][8]

隨著公共債務逐漸被認為是一種安全且流動性強的投資，它可以用作私人貸款的抵押品。這在公共債務市場和私人金融市場的發展之間形成了互補性。[7]政府借款為公共產品（如城市基礎設施）融資與現代經濟增長息息相關。[7]: 6

書麵記錄表明，早在兩千年前，希臘錫拉丘茲等城邦就向其公民借款，當時就存在公共借款。[7]: 10–16 但 1694 年英格蘭銀行的成立徹底改變了公共財政，並結束了 1672 年查理二世暫停支付賬單的“國庫大停付”等違約行為。從那時起，英國政府就再也沒有拖欠債權人了。[15] 在接下來的幾個世紀裏，歐洲其他國家以及後來世界各地的其他國家都采用了類似的金融機構來管理政府債務。

1815 年，拿破侖戰爭結束時，英國政府債務達到了 GDP 的 200% 以上的峰值，[16] 接近 8.87 億英鎊。[17]這些債務在 90 年內通過維持初級預算盈餘（即支付利息後收入大於支出）償還。[10]

1900 年，總債務最多的國家是法國（1,086,215,525 英鎊），其次是俄羅斯（656,000,000 英鎊），然後是英國（628,978,782 英鎊）；[17] 按人均計算，負債最多的國家是新西蘭（每人 58 英鎊 12 先令）、澳大利亞殖民地（52 英鎊 13 先令）和葡萄牙（35 英鎊）。[17]

2018 年，全球政府債務達到 66 萬億美元，約占全球 GDP 的 80%，[18] 到 2020 年，全球政府債務達到 87 萬億美元，占全球 GDP 的 99%。[6] 2020 年，新冠疫情導致公共債務飆升，尤其是在實施全麵財政措施的發達經濟體。[6]

政府債務的影響

政府債務積累可能導致利率上升，[9] 這可能會擠占私人投資，因為政府與私營企業爭奪有限的投資資金。一些證據表明，政府債務占 GDP 比重超過 80% 的國家的增長率較低。[9][19] 世界銀行集團的一份報告分析了 1980 年至 2008 年 100 個發達國家和發展中國家的債務水平，發現發達國家債務占 GDP 比重超過 77%（發展中國家為 64%），每超過閾值一個百分點，未來年經濟增長率就會下降 0.017 個百分點（發展中國家為 0.02 個百分點）。[20][21]

過高的債務水平可能使政府更容易受到債務危機的影響，即一個國家無法償還債務，也無法借入更多資金。[9]危機代價高昂，尤其是當債務危機與金融/銀行危機相結合時，會導致整個經濟去杠杆化。隨著企業出售資產以償還債務，資產價格下跌，這可能會導致收入進一步下降，進一步壓低稅收收入，並要求政府大幅削減政府服務。[22] 債務危機的例子包括 20 世紀 80 年代初的拉丁美洲債務危機和 2001 年的阿根廷債務危機。為了避免危機，政府可能希望保持“財政喘息空間”。曆史經驗表明，在需要時將政府債務水平翻一番的空間是一個大致的指導。[9]

政府債務是在支出超過收入時通過借貸積累起來的，因此政府債務通常會產生代際轉移。這是因為政府在債務產生時對商品和服務的支出的受益者通常與未來負責償還債務的個人不同。

關於政府債務的另一種觀點，有時被稱為李嘉圖等價命題，即如果個人是利他主義者並將債務對後代的影響內化，那麽政府債務就不會對經濟產生影響。[23] 根據這一命題，雖然政府購買的數量會影響經濟，但債務融資將產生與稅收融資相同的影響，因為通過債務融資，個人將預期償還債務所需的未來稅收，從而增加其儲蓄和遺贈，其數額相當於政府債務。這樣的結果

例如，個人儲蓄增加意味著私人消費會隨著政府債務的增加而下降，因此利率不會上升，私人投資也不會被擠出。

風險
信用（違約）風險
主要文章：信用風險
從曆史上看，政府拖欠債務的情況很多，包括 16 和 17 世紀的西班牙，它多次取消了政府債務；美國內戰後未償還債務的美利堅聯盟國；以及 1917 年後的革命俄羅斯，它拒絕承擔俄羅斯帝國外債的責任。[24]

如果政府債務以一個國家自己的法定貨幣發行，有時被認為是無風險的，因為債務和利息可以通過創造貨幣來償還。[25][26] 然而，並非所有政府都發行自己的貨幣。例子包括地方政府，如市、省和州政府；以及歐元區國家。在希臘政府債務危機中，一個提議的解決方案是讓希臘退出歐元區，重新發行德拉克馬[27][28]（盡管這隻能解決未來的債務發行問題，而大量現有債務將以外幣計價）。[29]

如果地方政府的債務由地區或國家級政府明確或隱含地擔保，則通常認為對貸方來說風險較小。當紐約市在 20 世紀 70 年代陷入破產狀態時，紐約州和美國聯邦政府提供了救助。美國州和地方政府的債務規模巨大——2016 年，他們的債務總額達到 3 萬億美元，另有 5 萬億美元的未償債務。[30]

通脹風險
發行本國貨幣的國家可能麵臨較低的本幣違約風險，但如果中央銀行通過購買政府債券（有時稱為債務貨幣化）提供融資，則可能導致價格通脹。一個極端的例子是，20 世紀 20 年代，魏瑪德國政府利用貨幣發行來償還第一次世界大戰後的國債，導致該國出現惡性通貨膨脹。

匯率風險
雖然以美元計價的美國國債對美國買家來說可能被視為無風險，但外國投資者卻要承擔美元相對於本國貨幣貶值的風險。政府可以發行外幣債務，以消除外國貸款人的匯率風險，但這意味著借款政府要承擔匯率風險。此外，通過發行外幣債務，一個國家不能通過通貨膨脹來侵蝕債務價值。[31] 從 1979 年到 2006 年，發展中國家樣本中幾乎 70% 的債務都是以美元計價的。[32]

隱性負債和或有負債

大多數政府都有或有負債，即除非未來發生特定事件，否則不會產生的義務。[2]: 76 顯性或有負債的一個例子是公共部門貸款擔保，政府隻有在債務人違約時才需要付款。[2]: 210, s.7.252 隱性或有負債的例子包括確保支付未來的社會保障養老金福利、在違約的情況下承擔地方政府的義務以及用於自然災害救助的支出。[2]: 209–210

顯性或有負債和淨隱性社會保障義務應作為備忘項目列入政府資產負債表，[2]: 69, 76–77, 209–212 但它們不包括在政府債務中，因為它們不是合同義務。[2]: 210, s.7.252 事實上，政府改變債務狀況並不罕見例如，單方麵改變社會保障計劃的福利結構（例如，通過改變福利支付的情況或福利金額）。[2]： 76， s4.49 在美國和許多國家，沒有專門用於未來社會保險支付的資金——這種製度被稱為現收現付製。根據美國社會保障和醫療保險信托基金受托人的 2018 年年度報告，醫療保險在未來 75 年內麵臨 37 萬億美元的未付負債，而社會保障在同一時期內麵臨 13 萬億美元的未付負債。[33] 這兩個金額都不包括在美國政府總債務中，2024 年的債務為 34 萬億美元。[34]

2010 年，歐盟委員會要求歐盟成員國以標準化方法公布其債務信息，明確包括之前以多種方式隱藏的債務，以滿足地方（國家）和歐洲（穩定與增長公約）層麵的最低要求。[35]

Government debt or sovereign debt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_debt#:~:text=

A country's gross government debt (also called public debt or sovereign debt[1]) is the financial liabilities of the government sector.[2]: 81 Changes in government debt over time reflect primarily borrowing due to past government deficits.[3] A deficit occurs when a government's expenditures exceed revenues.[4][2]: 79–82 Government debt may be owed to domestic residents, as well as to foreign residents. If owed to foreign residents, that quantity is included in the country's external debt.[5]

In 2020, the value of government debt worldwide was $87.4 US trillion, or 99% measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).[6] Government debt accounted for almost 40% of all debt (which includes corporate and household debt), the highest share since the 1960s.[6] The rise in government debt since 2007 is largely attributable to stimulus measures during the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 recession.[6]

The ability of government to issue debt has been central to state formation and to state building.[7][8] Public debt has been linked to the rise of democracy, private financial markets, and modern economic growth.[7][8]

Measuring government debt

Government debt is typically measured as the gross debt of the general government sector that is in the form of liabilities that are debt instruments.[2]: 207 A debt instrument is a financial claim that requires payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor in the future. Examples include debt securities (such as bonds and bills), loans, and government employee pension obligations.[2]: 207

International comparisons usually focus on general government debt because the level of government responsible for programs (for example, health care) differs across countries and the general government comprises central, state, provincial, regional, local governments, and social security funds.[2]: 18, s2.58, s2.59 The debt of public corporations (such as post offices that provide goods or services on a market basis) is not included in general government debt, following the International Monetary Fund's Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014 (GFSM), which describes recommended methodologies for compiling debt statistics to ensure international comparability.[2]: 33, s2.127

The gross debt of the general government sector is the total liabilities that are debt instruments. An alternative debt measure is net debt, which is gross debt minus financial assets in the form of debt instruments.[2]: 208, s7.243 Net debt estimates are not always available since some government assets may be difficult to value, such as loans made at concessional rates.[2]: 208–209, s7.246

Debt can be measured at market value or nominal value. As a general rule, the GFSM says debt should be valued at market value, the value at which the asset could be exchanged for cash.[2]: 55, s3.107 However, the nominal value is useful for a debt-issuing government, as it is the amount that the debtor owes to the creditor.[2]: 191, ft28 If market and nominal values are not available, face value (the undiscounted amount of principal to be repaid at maturity)[2]: 56 is used.[2]: 208, s7.238

A country's general government debt-to-GDP ratio is an indicator of its debt burden since GDP measures the value of goods and services produced by an economy during a period (usually a year). As well, debt measured as a percentage of GDP facilitates comparisons across countries of different size. The OECD views the general government debt-to-GDP ratio as a key indicator of the sustainability of government finance.[3]

Causes of government debt accumulation
An important reason governments borrow is to act as an economic "shock absorber". For example, deficit financing can be used to maintain government services during a recession when tax revenues fall and expenses rise for say unemployment benefits.[9] Government debt created to cover costs from major shock events can be particularly beneficial. Such events would include

a major war, like World War II;
a public health emergency like the COVID-19 recession; or
a severe economic downturn as with the Great Recession.[10]
In the absence of debt financing, when revenues decline during a downturn, a government would need to raise taxes or reduce spending, which would exacerbate the negative event.

While government borrowing may be desirable at times, a "deficits bias" can arise when there is disagreement among groups in society over government spending.[11][12] To counter deficit bias, many countries have adopted balanced budget rules or restrictions on government debt. Examples include the "debt anchor"[9] in Sweden; a "debt brake" in Germany and Switzerland; and the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact agreement to maintain a general government gross debt of no more than 60% of GDP.[13][14]

Historic benchmarks

The ability of government to issue debt has been central to state formation and to state building.[7][8] Public debt has been linked to the rise of democracy, private financial markets, and modern economic growth.[7][8] For example, in the 17th and 18th centuries England established a parliament that included creditors, as part of a larger coalition, whose authorization had to be secured for the country to borrow or raise taxes. This institution improved England's ability to borrow because lenders were more willing to hold the debt of a state with democratic institutions that would support debt repayment, versus a state where the monarch could not be compelled to repay debt.[7][8]

As public debt came to be recognized as a safe and liquid investment, it could be used as collateral for private loans. This created a complementarity between the development of public debt markets and private financial markets.[7] Government borrowing to finance public goods, such as urban infrastructure, has been associated with modern economic growth.[7]: 6

Written records point to public borrowing as long as two thousand years ago when Greek city-states such as Syracuse borrowed from their citizens.[7]: 10–16 But the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 revolutionised public finance and put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors.[15] In the following centuries, other countries in Europe and later around the world adopted similar financial institutions to manage their government debt.

In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of more than 200% of GDP,[16] nearly 887 million pounds sterling.[17] The debt was paid off over 90 years by running primary budget surpluses (that is, revenues were greater than spending after payment of interest).[10]

In 1900, the country with the most total debt was France (£1,086,215,525), followed by Russia (£656,000,000) then the United Kingdom (£628,978,782);[17] on a per-capita basis, the highest-debt countries were New Zealand (£58 12s. per person), the Australian colonies (£52 13s.) and Portugal (£35).[17]

In 2018, global government debt reached the equivalent of $66 trillion, or about 80% of global GDP,[18] and by 2020, global government debt reached $87US trillion, or 99% of global GDP.[6] The COVID-19 pandemic caused public debt to soar in 2020, particularly in advanced economies that put in place sweeping fiscal measures.[6]

Impacts of government debt

Government debt accumulation may lead to a rising interest rate,[9] which can crowd out private investment as governments compete with private firms for limited investment funds. Some evidence suggests growth rates are lower for countries with government debt greater than around 80 percent of GDP.[9][19] A World Bank Group report that analyzed debt levels of 100 developed and developing countries from 1980 to 2008 found that debt-to-GDP ratios above 77% for developed countries (64% for developing countries) reduced future annual economic growth by 0.017 (0.02 for developing countries) percentage points for each percentage point of debt above the threshold.[20][21]

Excessive debt levels may make governments more vulnerable to a debt crisis, where a country is unable to make payments on its debt, and it cannot borrow more.[9] Crises can be costly, particularly if a debt crisis is combined with a financial/banking crisis which leads to economy-wide deleveraging. As firms sell assets to pay off debt, asset prices fall which risks an even greater fall in incomes, further depressing tax revenue and requiring governments to drastically cut government services.[22] Examples of debt crises include the Latin American debt crisis of the early 1980s, and Argentina's debt crisis in 2001. To help avoid a crisis, governments may want to maintain a "fiscal breathing space". Historical experience shows that room to double the level of government debt when needed is an approximate guide.[9]

Government debt is built up by borrowing when expenditure exceeds revenue, so government debt generally creates an intergenerational transfer. This is because the beneficiaries of the government's expenditure on goods and services when the debt is created typically differ from the individuals responsible for repaying the debt in the future.

An alternative view of government debt, sometimes called the Ricardian equivalence proposition, is that government debt has no impact on the economy if individuals are altruistic and internalize the impact of the debt on future generations.[23] According to this proposition, while the quantity of government purchases affects the economy, debt financing will have the same impact as tax financing because with debt financing individuals will anticipate the future taxes needed to repay the debt, and so increase their saving and bequests by the amount of government debt. Such higher individual saving means, for example, that private consumption falls one-for-one with the rise in government debt, so the interest rate would not rise and private investment is not crowded out.

Risk
Credit (Default) risk
Main article: Credit risk
Historically, there have been many cases where governments have defaulted on their debts, including Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries, which nullified its government debt several times; the Confederate States of America, whose debt was not repaid after the American Civil War; and revolutionary Russia after 1917, which refused to accept responsibility for Imperial Russia's foreign debt.[24]

If government debt is issued in a country's own fiat money, it is sometimes considered risk free because the debt and interest can be repaid by money creation.[25][26] However, not all governments issue their own currency. Examples include sub-national governments, like municipal, provincial, and state governments; and countries in the eurozone. In the Greek government-debt crisis, one proposed solution was for Greece to leave the eurozone and go back to issuing the drachma[27][28] (although this would have addressed only future debt issuance, leaving substantial existing debt denominated in what would then be a foreign currency).[29]

Debt of a sub-national government is generally viewed as less risky for a lender if it is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by a regional or national level of government. When New York City declined into what would have been bankrupt status during the 1970s, a bailout came from New York State and the United States national government. U.S. state and local government debt is substantial — in 2016 their debt amounted to $3 trillion, plus another $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities.[30]

Inflation risk
A country that issues its own currency may be at low risk of default in local currency, but if a central bank provides finance by buying government bonds (sometimes referred to as debt monetization), this can lead to price inflation. In an extreme case, in the 1920s Weimar Germany suffered from hyperinflation when the government used money creation to pay off the national debt following World War I.

Exchange rate risk
While U.S. Treasury bonds denominated in U.S. dollars may be considered risk-free to an American purchaser, a foreign investor bears the risk of a fall in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to their home currency. A government can issue debt in foreign currency to eliminate exchange rate risk for foreign lenders, but that means the borrowing government then bears the exchange rate risk. Also, by issuing debt in foreign currency, a country cannot erode the value of the debt by means of inflation.[31] Almost 70% of all debt in a sample of developing countries from 1979 through 2006 was denominated in U.S. dollars.[32]

Implicit and contingent liabilities
Most governments have contingent liabilities, which are obligations that do not arise unless a particular event occurs in the future.[2]: 76 An example of an explicit contingent liability is a public sector loan guarantee, where the government is required to make payments only if the debtor defaults.[2]: 210, s.7.252 Examples of implicit contingent liabilities include ensuring the payment of future social security pension benefits, covering the obligations of subnational governments in the event of a default, and spending for natural disaster relief.[2]: 209–210

Explicit contingent liabilities and net implicit social security obligations should be included as memorandum items to a government's balance sheet,[2]: 69, 76–77, 209–212 but they are not included in government debt because they are not contractual obligations.[2]: 210, s.7.252 Indeed, it is not uncommon for governments to change unilaterally the benefit structure of social security schemes, for example (e.g., by changing the circumstances under which the benefits become payable, or the amount of the benefit).[2]: 76, s4.49 In the U.S. and in many countries, there is no money earmarked for future social insurance payments — the system is called a pay-as-you-go scheme. According to the 2018 annual reports from the trustees for the U.S. Social Security and Medicare trust funds, Medicare is facing a $37 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years, and Social Security is facing a $13 trillion unfunded liability over the same time frame.[33] Neither of these amounts are included in the U.S. gross general government debt, which in 2024 was $34 trillion.[34]

In 2010 the European Commission required EU Member Countries to publish their debt information in standardized methodology, explicitly including debts that were previously hidden in a number of ways to satisfy minimum requirements on local (national) and European (Stability and Growth Pact) level.[35]

政府債券或主權債券

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bond

政府債券或主權債券是政府為支持公共支出而發行的一種債券。它通常包括承諾支付定期利息（稱為息票支付）並在到期日償還票麵價值。

例如，債券持有人將 20,000 美元（稱為票麵價值或本金）投資於 10 年期政府債券，年息票率為 10%；政府每年將向債券持有人支付 10% 的利息（在本例中為 2000 美元），並在到期日（即 10 年後）償還 20,000 美元的原始票麵價值。

政府債券可以以外幣或政府的本國貨幣計價。經濟不太穩定的國家傾向於以經濟更穩定的國家的貨幣（即硬通貨）計價其債券。所有債券都存在違約風險；即政府無法償還債券持有人的可能性。經濟不穩定的國家的債券通常被認為風險較高。國際信用評級機構對每個國家的債券都進行評級。債券持有人通常要求風險較高的債券獲得更高的收益率。例如，2016年5月24日，加拿大政府發行的10年期國債收益率為1.34%，而巴西政府發行的10年期國債收益率為12.84%。

接近違約的政府有時被稱為主權債務危機。

曆史
荷蘭共和國於1517年借用阿姆斯特丹市發行的債券，成為第一個通過債券融資的國家。當時的平均利率在20%左右波動。

第一個由國家政府發行的官方政府債券是由英格蘭銀行於1694年發行的，旨在籌集資金資助對法戰爭。這些債券的形式既有彩票，也有年金。英格蘭銀行和政府債券是由英格蘭國王威廉三世（也稱為奧蘭治的威廉）在英國引入的，他模仿荷蘭七省發行債券和籌集政府債務的方式為英國的戰爭提供資金，他以荷蘭七省總督的身份統治這些省份。

後來，歐洲各國政府開始追隨這一趨勢，發行永久債券（沒有到期日的債券）來資助戰爭和其他政府支出。永久債券的使用在 20 世紀停止，目前各國政府發行的債券期限有限。

在美國獨立戰爭期間，為了籌集資金，美國政府開始發行債券 - 稱為貸款證書。債券產生的總金額為 2700 萬美元，為戰爭提供了資金。[3]

風險
信用風險
嚴格來說，以一國本國貨幣發行的政府債券是一種無風險債券，因為政府可以在必要時創造額外的貨幣以在到期時贖回債券。對於大多數政府來說，這隻能通過發行新債券來實現，因為政府沒有創造貨幣的可能性。（在“量化寬鬆”過程中，中央銀行用新創造的貨幣購買發行的債券，可以視為事實上的中央銀行直接向國家提供融資，獨立中央銀行對此已正式禁止。）有些政府選擇拖欠本幣債務，而不是創造額外的貨幣，例如 1998 年的俄羅斯（“盧布危機”）（參見國家破產）。

投資者可以使用評級機構來評估信用風險。在美國，證券交易委員會 (SEC) 已指定十家評級機構作為國家認可的統計評級機構。

貨幣風險
貨幣風險是指債券支付的貨幣價值相對於持有人的參考貨幣下跌的風險。例如，德國投資者會認為美國債券比德國債券具有更大的貨幣風險（因為美元相對於歐元可能會下跌）；同樣，美國投資者會認為德國債券比美國債券具有更大的貨幣風險（因為歐元兌美元可能會下跌）。以沒有保值曆史的貨幣支付的債券即使提供高利率也可能不劃算。[4] 貨幣風險由匯率波動決定。

通貨膨脹風險
通貨膨脹風險是指債券支付的貨幣價值會隨著時間的推移而下降的風險。投資者預計會有一定程度的通貨膨脹，因此風險在於通貨膨脹率會高於預期。許多政府發行通脹指數債券，通過將利息支付和到期支付與消費者價格指數掛鉤來保護投資者免受通脹風險。在英國，這些債券被稱為指數掛鉤債券。在美國，這些債券被稱為 I 係列債券。

利率風險

除市場風險外，所有債券都受利率風險影響。利率變化會影響債券的價值。如果利率下降，則債券價格上漲，如果利率上升，則債券價格下跌。當利率上升時，債券更具吸引力，因為投資者可以獲得更高的票麵利率，從而可能出現持有期風險。利率和債券價格呈負相關。較低的固定利率債券票麵利率意味著較高的利率風險，較高的固定利率債券票麵利率意味著較低的利率風險。債券的期限也會影響利率風險。事實上，期限越長，利率風險越高，期限越短，利率風險越低。

貨幣供應
另請參閱：量化寬鬆
如果中央銀行購買政府證券，例如債券或國庫券，則會增加貨幣供應量，因為中央銀行會向經濟注入流動性（現金）。這樣做會降低政府債券的收益率。相反，當中央銀行對抗通脹時，中央銀行會減少貨幣供應量。

這些增加或減少銀行係統中貨幣量的行為被稱為貨幣政策。

英國
在英國，政府債券被稱為英國國債。較早發行的債券有“國庫券”等名稱，較新發行的債券則被稱為“國庫金債券”。[5][6] 通脹指數化國債被稱為指數掛鉤國債。[7] 這意味著國債的價值會隨著通貨膨脹而上升。它們是英國政府為籌集資金而發行的固定利率證券。[需要引證] 英國國債的發行由英國財政部執行機構英國債務管理辦公室管理。1998 年 4 月之前，英國國債由英格蘭銀行發行。[8] 購買和銷售服務由 Computershare 管理。[9]

英國國債的到期期限比其他歐洲政府債券更長，這影響了各個國家養老金和人壽保險市場的發展。

傳統的英國政府債券可能看起來像這樣——“國庫券 3% 2020”。[10] 2019 年 4 月 27 日，英國 10 年期政府債券收益率為 1.145%。根據標準普爾的數據，中央銀行利率為 0.10%，英國評級為 AA。[11]

美國

美國財政部提供了幾種不同期限的債券。某些債券可能會支付利息，其他則不會。這些債券可能是：

儲蓄債券：它們被認為是最安全的投資之一。
國庫券 (T-notes)：這些債券的期限為兩年、三年、五年或十年，每六個月提供固定的息票支付，麵值為 1,000 美元。
國庫券 (T-bonds 或長期債券)：是期限最長的國庫券，從二十年到三十年不等。它們每六個月也會支付一次息票。
國庫通脹保值債券 (TIPS)：是美國財政部發行的通脹指數債券。這些債券的本金根據消費者價格指數進行調整。換句話說，本金隨通貨膨脹而增加，隨通貨緊縮而減少。
投資者持有美國政府債券的主要理由是這些債券免征州稅和地方稅。

這些債券通過政府的拍賣係統出售。債券在二級市場上買賣，二級市場是交易股票、債券、期權和期貨等金融工具的金融市場。

TreasuryDirect 是投資者可以直接從美國政府購買國庫證券的官方網站。這個在線係統允許投資者節省傳統渠道收取的傭金和費用。投資者可以使用銀行或經紀人持有債券。

Government bond or sovereign bond

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bond

A government bond or sovereign bond is a form of bond issued by a government to support public spending. It generally includes a commitment to pay periodic interest, called coupon payments, and to repay the face value on the maturity date.

For example, a bondholder invests $20,000, called face value or principal, into a 10-year government bond with a 10% annual coupon; the government would pay the bondholder 10% interest ($2000 in this case) each year and repay the $20,000 original face value at the date of maturity (i.e. after 10 years).

Government bonds can be denominated in a foreign currency or the government's domestic currency. Countries with less stable economies tend to denominate their bonds in the currency of a country with a more stable economy (i.e. a hard currency). All bonds carry default risk; that is, the possibility that the government will be unable to pay bondholders. Bonds from countries with less stable economies are usually considered to be higher risk. International credit rating agencies provide ratings for each country's bonds. Bondholders generally demand higher yields from riskier bonds. For instance, on May 24, 2016, 10-year government bonds issued by the Canadian government offered a yield of 1.34%, while 10-year government bonds issued by the Brazilian government offered a yield of 12.84%.

Governments close to a default are sometimes referred to as being in a sovereign debt crisis.^[1][2]

The Dutch Republic became the first state to finance its debt through bonds when it assumed bonds issued by the city of Amsterdam in 1517. The average interest rate at that time fluctuated around 20%.

The first official government bond issued by a national government was issued by the Bank of England in 1694 to raise money to fund a war against France. The form of these bonds was both lottery and annuity. The Bank of England and government bonds were introduced in England by William III of England (also called William of Orange), who financed England's war efforts by copying the approach of issuing bonds and raising government debt from the Seven Dutch Provinces, where he ruled as a stadtholder.

Later, governments in Europe started following the trend and issuing perpetual bonds (bonds with no maturity date) to fund wars and other government spending. The use of perpetual bonds ceased in the 20th century, and currently governments issue bonds of limited term to maturity.

During the American Revolution, in order to raise money, the U.S. government started to issue bonds - called loan certificates. The total amount generated by bonds was $27 million and helped finance the war.^[3]

Risks

[edit]

Credit risk

[edit]

A government bond in a country's own currency is strictly speaking a risk-free bond, because the government can if necessary create additional currency in order to redeem the bond at maturity. For most governments, this is possible only through the issue of new bonds, as the governments have no possibility to create currency. (The issue of bonds which are then bought by the central bank with newly created currency in the process of "quantitative easing" may be regarded as de facto direct state financing from the central bank, which is outlawed officially for independent central banks.) There have been instances where a government has chosen to default on its domestic currency debt rather than create additional currency, such as Russia in 1998 (the "ruble crisis") (see national bankruptcy).

Investors may use rating agencies to assess credit risk. In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has designated ten rating agencies as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations.

Currency risk

[edit]

Currency risk is the risk that the value of the currency a bond pays out will decline compared to the holder's reference currency. For example, a German investor would consider United States bonds to have more currency risk than German bonds (since the dollar may go down relative to the euro); similarly, a United States investor would consider German bonds to have more currency risk than United States bonds (since the euro may go down relative to the dollar). A bond paying in a currency that does not have a history of keeping its value may not be a good deal even if a high interest rate is offered.^[4] The currency risk is determined by the fluctuation of exchange rates.

Inflation risk

Inflation risk is the risk that the value of the currency a bond pays out will decline over time. Investors expect some amount of inflation, so the risk is that the inflation rate will be higher than expected. Many governments issue inflation-indexed bonds, which protect investors against inflation risk by linking both interest payments and maturity payments to a consumer price index. In the UK these bonds are called Index-linked bonds. In the US these bonds are called Series I bonds.

Interest rate risk

Also referred to as market risk, all bonds are subject to interest rate risk. Interest rate changes can affect the value of a bond. If the interest rates fall, then the bond prices rise and if the interest rates rise, bond prices fall. When interest rates rise, bonds are more attractive because investors can earn higher coupon rate, thereby holding period risk may occur. Interest rate and bond price have negative correlation. Lower fixed-rate bond coupon rates meaning higher interest rate risk and higher fixed-rate bond coupon rates meaning lower interest rate risk. Maturity of a bond also has an impact on the interest rate risk. Indeed, longer maturity meaning higher interest rate risk and shorter maturity meaning lower interest rate risk.

Money supply

[edit]

See also: Quantitative easing

If a central bank purchases a government security, such as a bond or treasury bill, it increases the money supply because a Central Bank injects liquidity (cash) into the economy. Doing this lowers the government bond's yield. On the contrary, when a Central Bank is fighting against inflation then a Central Bank decreases the money supply.

These actions of increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system are called monetary policy.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the UK, government bonds are called gilts. Older issues have names such as "Treasury Stock" and newer issues are called "Treasury Gilt".^[5][6] Inflation-indexed gilts are called Index-linked gilts.,^[7] which means the value of the gilt rises with inflation. They are fixed-interest securities issued by the British government in order to raise money.^{[citation needed]} The issuance of gilts is managed by the UK Debt Management Office, an executive agency of HM Treasury. Prior to April 1998, gilts were issued by the Bank of England.^[8] Purchase and sales services are managed by Computershare.^[9]

UK gilts have maturities stretching much further into the future than other European government bonds, which has influenced the development of pension and life insurance markets in the respective countries.

A conventional UK gilt might look like this – "Treasury stock 3% 2020".^[10] On the 27 of April 2019 the United Kingdom 10Y Government Bond had a 1.145% yield. Central Bank Rate is 0.10% and the United Kingdom rating is AA, according to Standard & Poor's.^[11]

United States

The U.S. Treasury offered several types of bonds with various maturities. Certain bonds may pay interest, others not. These bonds could be:

• Savings bonds: they are considered one of the safest investments.

• Treasury notes (T-notes): maturity of these bonds is two, three, five or 10 years, they provided fixed coupon payments every six months and have face value of $1,000.

• Treasury bonds (T-bonds or long bonds): are the treasury bonds with the longest maturity, from twenty years to thirty years. They also have a coupon payment every six months.

• Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS): are the inflation-indexed bond issued by the U.S. Treasury. The principal of these bonds is adjusted to the Consumer Price Index. In other words, the principal increases with inflation and decreases with deflation.

The principal argument for investors to hold U.S. government bonds is that the bonds are exempt from state and local taxes.

The bonds are sold through an auction system by the government. The bonds are buying and selling on the secondary market, the financial market in which financial instruments such as stock, bond, option and futures are traded.

TreasuryDirect is the official website where investors can purchase treasury securities directly from the U.S. government. This online system allow investors to save money on commissions and fees taken with traditional channels. Investors can use banks or brokers to hold a bond.

資本主義騙局  讓政府借錢  大緊縮騙局

大緊縮騙局 The great austerity shell game

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game

Richard Wolff 2013 年 11 月 4 日星期一

資本主義騙局是這樣運作的：讓政府借錢來應對危機，然後堅持削減開支來支付。猜猜誰會輸

英國和德國的中右翼政府這樣做。法國和意大利的中左翼政府也是如此。奧巴馬和共和黨也這麽做。他們都在必要時對經濟實施“緊縮”計劃，以擺脫自 2007 年以來困擾他們的危機。政客和經濟學家現在實施緊縮政策，就像醫生曾經在病人的皮膚上貼芥末膏一樣。

緊縮政策假定當今的主要經濟問題是增加國家債務的政府預算赤字。緊縮政策主要通過削減政府開支來解決這些問題，其次是通過限製增稅。削減支出、增加收入確實會減少政府的赤字和借貸需求。

國家債務的減少或下降取決於每個政府的支出減少多少和稅收增加多少。奧巴馬在 2013 年的緊縮政策始於 1 月 1 日，當時他將每個人的年收入工資稅提高到 113,700 美元。然後，在 3 月 1 日，“自動減支”降低了聯邦支出。因此，2013 年的美國赤字將比 2012 年大幅下降。

奧巴馬可能會實施更多緊縮政策：削減社會保障和醫療保險福利，以與共和黨妥協。同樣，歐洲各國政府也維持其“緊縮”計劃。即使是官方上“反緊縮”和“社會主義”的法國政府，也有一份新預算，其中社會支出也進行了典型的緊縮削減。

積累的證據表明，緊縮計劃通常會加劇經濟衰退。那麽，為什麽它們仍然是大多數資本主義政府的首選政策呢？

當資本主義經濟崩潰時，大多數資本家會要求——政府也會提供——信貸市場救助和經濟刺激。然而，企業和富人反對對他們征收新稅來支付刺激和救助計劃。相反，他們堅持認為政府應該借入必要的資金。自 2007 年以來，世界各地的資本主義政府都為這些昂貴的計劃大量借款。因此，他們出現了巨大的預算赤字，國家債務飆升。

因此，大量借貸是資本家應對其係統最新危機的首選政策。這對他們很有幫助。

借貸支付了政府對銀行、其他金融公司和其他選定大公司的救助費用。借貸使刺激支出得以恢複對商品和服務的需求。借貸使政府能夠支出失業補償、食品券和其他抵消危機引發的痛苦的措施。

通過這些方式，借貸有助於減少那些被解雇、被趕出家門、被剝奪工作保障和福利等人群的批評、怨恨、憤怒和反體製傾向。政府借貸對資本家產生了這些積極的影響——同時還使他們免於納稅以獲得這些結果。

這還不是全部。企業和富人利用他們通過阻止政府向他們征稅而節省下來的資金來提供政府所需的巨額貸款。中低收入人群幾乎無法向政府提供任何貸款。企業和富人實際上是用貸款代替向政府貸款，而不是支付更多的稅。對於這些貸款，政府必須支付利息並最終償還。

政府借貸給企業和富人帶來了相當豐厚的回報。這對資本家來說是一筆非常劃算的交易。

然而，這筆劃算的交易又帶來了一個新問題。政府從哪裏找到資金，首先，支付所有借款的利息，其次，償還貸款人？企業和富人擔心他們可能仍需納稅來提供這些資金。他們決心避免繳納此類稅款——就像他們一開始就避免被征稅來支付刺激和救助計劃一樣。

因此，緊縮政策是資本家首選的第二項政策，是在政府努力應對經濟危機時避免提高稅收的第二種方法。企業和富人通過大聲堅持當今的主要經濟問題不是失業、失去工作保障和福利、房屋止贖以及創紀錄的收入和財富不平等來提倡緊縮政策。相反，關鍵問題是政府赤字和不斷上升的國家債務。必須削減這些。

要做到這一點，應該適度提高稅收或根本不加稅（以避免“傷害”經濟）。因此，關鍵的解決方案是削減政府在就業、社會福利和社會服務方麵的支出。通過這些削減節省下來的資金應該用來支付國家債務的利息並減少債務。

因此，資本主義應對其反複出現的危機的方式是一個了不起的兩步走。第一步，大規模借貸為刺激和救助計劃提供資金。第二步，澳大利亞

資本家為借貸買單。

這種忙碌將資本主義危機的大部分成本轉嫁到中低收入人群身上。這種轉移通過緊縮計劃實現的失業率上升、工資下降和政府服務減少而實現。持續減少稅收增長也同樣如此——尤其是對企業和富人的稅收增長。

除了少數例外，世界各地的主要政黨都實施了資本主義的兩步忙碌。隻有當中低收入人群的大規模反對足夠有組織，可能威脅到資本主義本身時，資本家才會在借貸和緊縮政策上動搖和分裂。一些資本家隨後與反對派合作，支持“新政”，而不是緊縮政策。

即便如此，一旦度過了眼前的危機，資本家就會恢複到他們偏愛的借貸和緊縮政策。美國從 1929 年到現在的曆史很好地教會了我們這個教訓。

資本家知道他們的製度是不穩定的。他們從來沒有阻止過危機的複發。相反，他們依靠政策來“管理”危機。兩步走的策略——借錢刺激經濟和救助，然後緊縮政策——通常能起到作用。凱恩斯主義者提倡借錢，當緊縮政策隨之而來時，他們似乎感到驚訝，甚至憤怒。

企業和富人本來就不應該逃避稅收，因為他們幫助引發了危機；他們在危機前的幾十年裏致富最多；他們最有能力支付克服危機的費用。如果他們被征稅來支付刺激和救助的費用，就不需要借錢或緊縮政策了。

對企業和富人征稅也會產生後果，但它們產生的社會成本要小得多，而且主要落在那些最有能力應對這些後果的人身上。

但任何有組織的反對派，隻要足夠強大，讓企業和富人為資本主義的危機買單，也可能會質疑資本主義本身。在經曆了近六年的危機後，人們提出了一個問題：“我們難道不能比資本主義做得更好嗎？”推動，要求討論、辯論和民主決策。

事實不容辯論

《衛報》認為，獲取可靠信息對民主至關重要，特別是在美國大選之前，這可能會對全世界產生重大影響。

在壞人、極端媒體和專製政客傳播錯誤信息日益增多的時代，真實、可靠的新聞報道從未如此重要——我們很自豪能夠廣泛分享我們的新聞報道，這要感謝像您這樣的加拿大讀者的慷慨支持。

通過今天幫助資助《衛報》，您可以在打擊那些散布謊言以破壞民主和煽動全球政治分裂的人的惡意和私利方麵發揮重要作用。

The great austerity shell game

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/great-austerity-shell-game 

Richard Wolff  Mon 4 Nov 2013 

Here's how the capitalist scam works: let government borrow for crisis bailouts, then insist cuts pay for them. Guess who loses

Center-right governments in Britain and Germany do it. So do the center-left governments in France and Italy. Obama and the Republicans do it, too. They all impose "austerity" programs on their economies as necessary to exit the crisis afflicting them all since 2007. Politicians and economists impose austerity now much as doctors once stuck mustard plasters on the skins of the sick.

Austerity policies presume that the chief economic problems today are government budget deficits that increase national debts. Austerity policies solve those problems mainly by cutting government spending, and secondarily, by limited tax increases. Reducing expenditures while raising revenues does cut governments' deficits and their needs to borrow.

National debts grow less or drop depending on how much each government's expenditures decrease and its taxes increase. Obama's austerity policies during 2013 started 1 January, when he raised payroll taxes on everyone's annual incomes up to $113,700. Then, on 1 March, the "sequester" lowered federal expenditures. Thus, 2013's US deficit will drop sharply from 2012's.

Obama will likely impose more austerity: cutting social security and Medicare benefits to compromise with Republicans. Similarly, European governments maintain their "austerity" programs. Even France's government, officially "anti-austerity" and "socialist", has a new budget with typical austerity cuts in social expenditures.

The accumulated evidence shows that austerity programs usually make economic downturns worse. Why, then, do they remain the preferred policy for most capitalist governments?

When capitalist economies crash, most capitalists request – and governments provide – credit market bailouts and economic stimuli. However, corporations and the rich oppose new taxes on them to pay for stimulus and bailout programs. They insist, instead, that governments should borrow the necessary funds. Since 2007, capitalist governments everywhere borrowed massively for those costly programs. They thus ran large budget deficits and their national debts soared.

Heavy borrowing was thus capitalists' preferred first policy to deal with their system's latest crisis. It served them well.

Borrowing paid for government rescues of banks, other financial companies, and selected other major corporations. Borrowing enabled stimulus expenditures that revived demand for goods and services. Borrowing enabled government outlays on unemployment compensation, food stamps, and other offsets to crisis-induced suffering.

In these ways, borrowing helped reduce the criticism, resentment, anger, and anti-system tendencies among those fired from jobs, evicted from homes, deprived of job security and benefits, etc. Government borrowing had these positive results for capitalists – while saving them from paying taxes to get those results.

Nor is that all. Corporations and the rich used the money they saved by keeping governments from taxing them to provide the huge loans governments therefore needed. Middle- and lower-income people could lend little if anything to their governments. Corporations and the rich, in effect, substituted loans to the government instead of paying more in taxes. For those loans, governments must pay interest and eventually repay them.

Government borrowing rewards corporations and the rich quite nicely. It amounts to a very sweet deal for capitalists.

Yet, that sweet deal raises a new problem. Where will governments find funds, first, to pay interest on all the borrowing, and second, to pay back the lenders? Corporations and the rich worry that they might still be taxed to provide those funds. They are determined to avoid such taxes – just as they avoided being taxed to pay for stimulus and bailout programs in the first place.

Austerity is thus capitalists' preferred second policy, a second way to avoid higher taxes as governments struggle with economic crises. Corporations and the rich promote austerity by loudly insisting that today's key economic problems are not unemployment, lost job security and benefits, home foreclosures, and record-breaking inequalities of income and wealth. Rather, the key problems are government deficits and rising national debt. They must be cut.

To do that, taxes should be raised modestly or not at all (to avoid "hurting" the economy). The key solution is thus to cut government outlays on jobs, social benefits, and providing social services. Money saved by those cuts should be used instead to pay interest on the national debt and reduce it.

Capitalism's way of dealing with its recurring crises is thus a remarkable two-step hustle. In step one, massive borrowing funds stimulus and bailout programs. In step two, austerity pays for the borrowing.

This hustle shifts most of the costs of capitalist crises onto the backs of middle- and lower-income people. The shift occurs through the higher unemployment, lower wages, and reduced government services achieved by austerity programs. It occurs as well in the sustained minimization of tax increases – especially on corporations and the rich.

With few exceptions, major political parties everywhere have imposed capitalism's two-step hustle. Only when mass opposition from middle- and lower-income people is sufficiently organized to possibly threaten capitalism itself do capitalists waver and split over borrowing and austerity. Some capitalists then collaborate with that opposition to support "New Deals", instead of austerity.

Even then, once past the immediate crisis, capitalists revert to their preferred policies of borrowing and austerity. US history from 1929 to the present teaches that lesson well.

Capitalists know their system is unstable. They have never yet prevented recurring crises. They rely instead on policies to "manage" them. The two-step hustle – borrowing for stimulus and bailouts and then austerity – usually does the job. Keynesians promote the borrowing and then seem surprised, even outraged, when austerity follows.

Corporations and the rich should not have escaped taxation in the first place because they helped to cause the crisis; they enriched themselves the most in the decades before the crisis; and they can best afford to pay to overcome the crisis. Had they been taxed to pay for stimulus and bailout, no need would have arisen for borrowing or austerity.

Taxing corporations and the rich would have consequences too, but they would generate far fewer social costs and fall mostly on those best able to cope with them.

But any organized opposition strong enough to make corporations and the rich pay for capitalism's crises would likely also question capitalism itself. Emerging from nearly six years of crisis, the question "can't we do better than capitalism?" pushes forward, demanding discussion, debate, and democratic decision.

Facts aren’t up for debate  

The Guardian believes that access to trustworthy information is vital for democracy, particularly ahead of a US election that could have dramatic consequences for the whole world. 

In a time of increasing misinformation spread by bad actors, extremist media and autocratic politicians, real, reliable journalism has never been more important – and we’re proud to be able to share ours widely thanks to the generous support of readers like you in Canada. 

By helping fund the Guardian today, you can play a vital role in combating the bad faith and self-interest of those who spread lies to undermine democracy and stoke political division around the globe.